the update recording in progress yeah I'm trying to help you all right Virginia can you turn your camera
on for roll call okay yeah I'm a stoplight
Yeah, we can see you. You're good. And we have Jane. Great. Is everything okay? No surgery. Okay, good.
We also do have a quorum without you here, so if you do need to go. Okay. All right. All right. Welcome,
everyone, on this beautiful Wednesday afternoon in Bloomington.
springtime, so we'll start with roll call. Do we want to start online, Virginia? Do you want to start
roll call for us? Sure. Virginia Gethneri, BUEA. Felisa Spinelli, BUEA. Michael Hilger, BUEA. BUEA.
Katerina Ka, BUEA. Heather Robinson, BUEA. Jane Cougarsmith, BUEA. Tegan Garner, staff. D'Dorosa, staff.
Hey Rosenberger, BBA. All right. Welcome, everyone. OK. The directors? No, minutes. We've got minutes.
Sorry. I'll just get them out of myself here. OK. Minutes from our last meeting, which was in March,
because we did not meet in April. Were there any comments, corrections, questions about the minutes
from that meeting? I've got no questions. It looks good to me. All right. Hearing none, do we have a
motion to approve?
Motion approved. Second. Second. And then we'll need to do a roll call for the approval. So we'll, Felisa,
you want to start the roll call for approval of minutes? Felisa Spinelli, yes. You're on mute. Virginia
Gutierrez, yes. Great. Michael Hover, yes. Kevin DeKalb, yes. Heather Robinson, yes. Jane Cougarsmith, yes.
OK, Rosenberger, yes. OK, minutes are approved. Thank you. OK, now directors report. OK, it's pretty
short and sweet. So I don't know if I mentioned it last meeting, but Dana Kerr will be covering Alex
Pratt as our legal counsel while Alex is on leave. So if we have any questions that need to be directed
towards legal, they'll be going to Dana. Just let me know, and I'll take care of that.
We have two new potential EZ participants. One is Tradewinds Contractor Accelerator. Tradewinds is pretty
cool. It's run, one of the partners is Jane Nelson who I've had the most contact with and it
is an accelerator for contractors to get into owning their own business and it's kind of like support
networking access to lawyers, accountants, things like that. Really amazing effort to undertake for
our tradespeople. And so that property, he gave me permission to say this. So the property is on West
Kirkwood behind Klendorfers. So yeah, so I think that property has been available for a really long
time, so it's really nice to see something go in there.
And then I'll have details on the second one. We're still kind of like trying to figure out some logistics
on it. It is eligible, but the company is kind of trying to figure out some old paperwork from an older
one from way before I think any of us were in this room. And then just this tiny little update on the
Business Economic Enhancement Scholarship.
This is the first time that I've had like three out in the first quarter, which is really exciting.
That one's picked up a lot of traction and I'm really happy that people are starting to know about it.
Yeah, so I think that we'll have all of that money expended pretty soon out of that grant line. So that's
really all that I have that's pressing or exciting or fun. Yeah. Great. You did want to talk about this.
grant, kind of where we are with the grant disbursements and what we've committed. Absolutely.
So let me see. I'm going to jump in again here. Let me see if I can share this. Where do I have it open?
I have it open here. Wonderful. Guys, I'm sorry. I'm having a hard time right now. So I appreciate your patience.
Um, I just feel like with every update, everything gets moved. Okay. So I'm going to put this up here.
Um, can everybody online see that? Are we good? Yes. Great. Um, so, uh, as of May,
We have distributed two of our grants in the education section. So MCCSC, hand delivery to check to
them, that was really fun. And Lemonade Day, I'm really excited to be able to participate in Lemonade
Day. If you are new to it or don't know about Lemonade Day, Boys and Girls Club, it has an initiative
to teach young people about entrepreneurship. And there are lemonade stands
All over the city, it's super fun. And the kids are adorable. And it's not just lemonade. Sometimes
they sell cookies. Sometimes they make crafts. Sometimes they do things like that. And it's probably
my favorite thing that we do. So at this point, we've expended $77,500 out of that grant line.
with a remaining balance of $15,000 just to the resident economic independent scholarships. I do have
a couple of applications in that right now. I'm just trying to get some information for some people
before I approve them. Entrepreneurship for the Cook SBDC grant, we have
Oh, I think I made a mistake. That line should have been taken out. We actually have not expended anything
out of that yet. But it is $45,000 as per usual. No, I'm right. I'm right. OK, we're good. We haven't
spent anything out of that. I do have that contract, and I'm waiting to figure out some details on that
before I send it around. Business economic enhancement, I think at the bottom it shows we have three.
that have been approved for a total of $3,200, leaving you $68,000 for those scholarships. A lot of
conferences that people are interested in, and I'm super excited about that. No expense on the mill
zone day passes. I feel like I should probably update that to amplify.
Sorry, guys. However, since I've been doing one day at the resource desk, I'm trying to kind of push
that a little bit to people that come visit me there. So trying to get more people to utilize that.
And then we eliminated the uncategorized grants and unbudgeted grants in that section. We have not expended
at this juncture or when I was putting this together, I did not put any expenses in any of the arts
categories.
yet. I do know that there are some grants that are going out and some payments that have been submitted.
But I want to finalize that and get a decent number before I put that in there with the search for the
new AD and having a consultant. It's been a different system than we've usually used. And so I apologize
for not having that update. But I will have something for you next month.
And then for zone improvement, we have approved two minor repair grants, which is really great. I have,
I think, another one in the hopper that I just got, I think, yesterday. So we still have about $8,100
in that. Sean and I have talked, I'm sorry, the assistant director of sustainability, Sean Mia, and
I have discussed
expending the two potential seal grants. I think that they're still doing pretty well on that budget
line for the city budget. So I think that this is kind of the they will expend all of that money in
the city budget. They do every year. So hopefully this will be the two extra ones that can really help
out the zone.
The historic facade grant, we added an additional $40,000 to make it $90,000 this year to accommodate
for the first Christian church grant. That payment is actually in for payment. We have their receipts,
and that should be moving along shortly.
to get them paid out. I started it before this meeting. Oh, great. Yeah. So they're going to get paid
really soon. So very exciting. And it looks like all of that work is completed there. I was going to
have found then $130,000. That is mathematically on my part. You're adding instead of subtracting. It
added instead of subtracting. And I am so very sorry. OK. It carries down to the next. So the total
at the bottom is $227. Yeah.
No, actually your next line is you need 35, should be 25. Guys, I am so sorry. It picked up adding instead
of subtracting energy. I am so sorry. I see. Oh, okay. I will fix that. Small Business Safety and Security
Grant, there was $5,000 out for the Fox Capital improvements. That didn't make it out of
last year's budget. So it is coming out of this one, which is fine because I actually have not had a
small business safety and security grant asked this year at this juncture. So working on seeing if we
can assist any people with that. Business building improvement, that's the rub. And then we've got the
Wonder Lab. And I think that's just the two for those. So those are the two that we've done for this year.
Both were approved, or that's where it was approved in December. So that's why it's hitting our books
now. And then the Wonder Lab was from last month. And no asks or requests on the business accessibility
modification grant. So I think we're actually doing pretty well as far as getting some grants out there.
First quarter is always pretty slow. I feel that in the next month or two is when
I'm really going to see more applications come in because it is the season to start doing improvements
and figuring out how to pay for that. But I'm feeling pretty good about where we are with the grants.
So as far as the full financial report, we did not receive statements from German American Bank.
to complete the quarterly report. So we will have that next month. And I did not receive the January
and February statements until right before the meeting. So I did not include them into the budget because
I didn't even get a chance to look at them really. So we'll have a full financial report next month,
which is June. So yes, we will. Well, I'm just curious and I understand
administrative in the office, but March statements from the bank should be easier to obtain. I mean,
you know, I'm just asking that question. Oh, like we legitimately have not received a statement from
German American Bank. That seems like there should be some corrective action. Yeah. Being able to get
that online or some kind of way for reconciliation. When that happened, when we got the ask about that,
It wasn't until yesterday, I think. So yeah, that is an administrative issue and I'm trying to rectify
it. I understand there's a lot going on in the controller's office, but I just think that, you know,
that seems like an excessively long time to be waiting for a statement. And I think that this could be
grabbed offline. There's online accounts so you can go grab your statements. So I'm wondering if there's
a way to maybe work with the controller's office to speed that up a bit, access to that if possible.
See what I can do? Yeah. Thanks, Dee. I understand you're working with others. And there's plenty of
other things that they're doing in the controller's office outside of DUA. I get that. Hello. There she is.
Hey, Virginia. Welcome. Thank you so much. Virginia Dental Line, we didn't get Brad. We did not get
Brad. So welcome, Brad. Welcome, Brad. Thank you. I did this quick math, Dee, on your spreadsheet. And
it looks like then our total balance is 152,536. Thank you.
just as a note for the meeting, correcting those three mathematical calculation, Excel doing more than
you wanted it to do there. Yeah, that's what I get for trying to do the conditional formatting.
That's okay. All right, great. Well, thanks for that update. Yeah. Hopefully we'll have some more applicants
coming through the door.
So we can disperse some of the monies that we have budgeted. So hopefully, to your point, with the weather
change in the summer, when things really kind of start to heat up for businesses that want to be able
to do things, hopefully we'll see an increase there. All right. Can I go back? I missed in the March
minutes. My name is spelled wrong in two places. Oh. Oh, no.
So your first name or your last name? It's my first name. It has an E instead of an A. It's K-A-T-A-R-A-N-A.
I am so sorry about that. It's not a problem. I missed it before, so I just wanted to show you.
All right. Thank you. For that, we will make sure that that is corrected and will not appear incorrect
again. All right. OK. Any other comments on the?
update from them. I was wondering about the Resident Economic Independent Scholarships. Are those, do
they have a certain amount that you give out to people or is it just kind of whatever they're requesting?
So the max on that is $1,250. Usually the way it was originally set up, it was like in, you could do
like two installments of like
$7.50 max, it's like a lifetime of $12.50, which is actually considerably low when you think about the
times that we live in. It goes towards books, courses, and it is almost always paid directly to the
institution in which someone is taking the course. But yeah, usually at this point people are just asking
for the max because that's how much it costs.
I want to familiarize myself with more of these so that I can advocate and let people know. Yeah, absolutely.
I don't know. I think I sent you the onboarding packet, but I don't know if I included the grants. So
I will send you the grant packet as well. I'm so sorry about that. That's all right. Thank you.
All right. Any other questions or comments about that? All right. Let's see.
New business. So we have an open position for officer on the board. Mary Morgan served as our secretary
and her term ended in January. And so she didn't continue on the committee. So we have an open spot
for secretary. And I would actually like to nominate Michael Hover to fill that position.
I'd love to second that. All right. I think it will be great, Michael. So thank you for taking on that
position. Of course. We do need to still vote. Yes. So we'll need to do a vote, including roll call
with Felisa online. Felisa, do you want to start? Oh, I'm so sorry. This will be to approve Michael
Hover as the secretary.
Yes. Felicia Spinelli, yes. Kate? Kate Rosenberger, yes. Can someone motion it and then second it? Yeah.
Oh, I did motion it.
Can I not motion it? As chair, I don't know that you can. So just in case so we don't have to redo it
next time. Oh, of course. Somebody motion and then we'll have to. I'll motion. Perfect. Thank you. Sorry
about that. I just wanted to make sure we didn't have to do it next time. Yeah, I don't usually motion
things, but inside moms, especially. That's interesting. I didn't realize I couldn't. Sometimes chair
can't. You might have been able to in this instance, but just in case. Totally agree. Just covering
bases. Covering bases is great. Yeah. OK. So now we're back.
Kate, you? Kate Rosenberger, yes. Virginia Gethheri, yes. Jane Coopersmith, yes. Heather Robinson, yes.
Katerina Ka, yes. Brad Whistler, yes. Michael Hover, yes. All right. Yay. All right. Thank you. Much
appreciated. All right. So some general discussion. Dee, it looks like you've put together
some potential grant changes for us here in a document? I would love to take credit for that, but it
was actually taken our wonderful administrative assistant who has been helping me out with some of this
stuff. And so since I'm very scattered right now, I'm going to take it away.
What I wrote up is based on what you discussed last time when we were discussing the WonderLab grant.
So there's a lot of conversation about what should be allowed as far as personnel costs versus labor
costs. And so looking at your current language that's available online to grant applicants, I went off
what's going on your website, what people see first. And it's kind of structured a little different.
So you have an eligibility criteria and then application requirements. And in that eligibility criteria,
you don't have anything about labor.
So I just put together a few recommendations that are all doable. One option, of course, is that you
can leave it the same and you can kind of consider it on the same basis as you did last time. However,
there is something in your minor improvement grant language that could kind of help you out there for
ineligible expenses. You put routine maintenance.
And that's kind of how you consider the Wonder Lab application. You took the labor that would be routine
maintenance, and you deemed it ineligible, which is perfectly valid. So you could add that language
to this grant. We also have that we could add additional language to say it either is explicitly eligible
or explicitly ineligible. And then I put a few things about how you could word that.
The most important thing in that it's not necessarily whether you put it as ineligible or eligible.
You can kind of get the same result either way. But you want to make sure that if we're going to do
it one way or another that they're laying out that expense. And I can also create examples on how they
can do that for budgeting because you know if they're contracting out a project they're going to have labor.
It might not be broken down that way. And we're not going to exclude that. But if then it's like, hey,
we're doing the project ourselves. We're paying people extra to do this, kind of in the Wonder Love
situation. They were opening in hours that they wouldn't typically be open. And we deemed that would
be a project expense. So you could clarify that. And then I also did add the in kind option. And I don't
dislike the in kind option. I just think it's a little jargony for this level of grant.
I think that it's one of those things that's not a terrible option, but it is one of those things that
people don't think of in kind. So that makes for more calculation. And for lots of grants, it's the
same result. But for larger grants, so if you're having people who are asking for the max request, they
can really take bigger benefit from that than somebody who's only requesting $2,000. So there's that.
Do you have any questions?
It looks really great, and thanks for breaking that up like that. It makes it very digestible. I agree.
I think option three is a little bit of muddy waters, and it's going to further the discussion of what
is applicable. In-kind matching, that's a nonprofit world so much. Businesses may not really understand
that as well.
you deal with it all the time, you get in kind from businesses, but they're usually on the giving side
of it, not necessarily receiving the side in that regard. So I would agree with that, maybe not.
Option three, my one comment would be consistency across the grants where anything, any of these could,
there could be cost
related to labor from the business itself, that that be consistent, so whatever maybe we talk about
or we make a decision today that that is consistent across the grants, so it's not, you know, also for
the board having to remember, oh, on this one is that okay or is this, you know, I think just trying
to make that a consistent language. Can I just throw a question out there? Yeah.
I think it's really great to be able to add in kind and for match and eligible for reimbursement. And
then we'll let the applicant determine how they want to categorize their labor costs if they want to
do it. Is there a reason why we wouldn't be able to accommodate that flexibility? From an administrative
perspective, so this was what my other
When I was looking at your administrative process, so what people have to submit, there's no way for
us to really police if they're doing the in-kind correctly. So my answer is no, but there also is that
administrative side of in-kind, where typically you'd have them report hours and pay stubs, and we don't
really have that follow-up. Now, if you're not as concerned about the follow-up, then that's fine, but
that was kind of... So then do you not really view option three as an option?
for option, so I put it on there because it was discussed. I think it is an option if it was really
what you decided that you wanted. They just have to be more taken into consideration. And I kind of
left this as very preliminary for options. If you wanted me to break it down further as a, we would
like to explore this further, I can definitely do that. Because like I said, I just brought these up
based on the options that were discussed at the previous meeting. Yeah, I guess the reason why I would
I think, again, the amounts, the dollar amounts, are typically not that huge. So for the $5,000 grant,
it's not going to really matter. But you just paid a $40,000 grant. And for that, it might
be more significant. And so we use the one or less example. But First Christian Church could be an example,
too, where they have in-kind labor, but they have less cash flow.
So I think it could be really beneficial. And then on federal grants, I think typically there's just
a not to exceed amount. And so you're not providing actual receipts and you're not, you know, you're
quoting your hours. Yeah. Do you ask for a statement of activity, like an actual, like their actuals?
So you can see if they're paying their staff.
So like in grants I've worked with in the past that do in-kind, typically you're filling out an in-kind
timesheet and you're clocking people's hours separately from their work hours and it's saying I worked
this much on this project and then you're doing that to calculate the rate and that's kind of the reporting
mechanism. So there's options for that. Just currently with our administrative follow-up it just doesn't,
that doesn't currently exist. It's something that could be created but right now it's
So you're suggesting that if the follow-up is not important, then this could be viable auction. Well,
as a former grant administrator, no. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it would probably be. So my
problem with InKind is just from the reporting standpoint. It's great. And I'm all for people getting
their match out, especially with larger projects that can be very helpful with Clash Low. I agree with
all those benefits. But when you're not following it up, now
They can request whatever they want. We don't know what's happening. And so it's not that I'm super
concerned, but there should be some administrative follow-up to follow up that in-kind requirement,
because otherwise, what's to say the labor's not taking up? Even if you're saying, oh, it can only be
50% of your match cap, well, is then everybody going to start applying for 50% of their match? And part
of the thing is I think part of your goal is to spur investment.
You want businesses to receive money, but you also want them to spend money and invest in themselves
as well. So then that's kind of like, you get into what's the goal of the thing. And as an administrator,
that makes me nervous, just not having the administrator follow. How is it different, though, between
option two? I mean, what follow-up are we doing to verify the labor costs that they're reporting? We're not.
And so, like, there's not a whole lot of difference. The one thing there is, though, that they are signing
on to their, you know, providing a budget. They're saying, this is what our labor is going to cost us,
and they're signing off on that budget. And, you know, they're approved for that capped amount. Sometimes
in-kind, too, is a little more flexible. So, like, in-kind, a lot of times, if you're doing, like, a
state or federal grant, which I realize that's not our scope, you're going to have to report your in-kind,
and then you only receive in in-kind what you actually put out.
So that's typically the difference. But either way, it's on the honor system. We're taking their word
for it. Whether it's we had this many volunteer hours or we paid this much in wages, we just take that
at face value. And that's something else you'd have to break down as if you're counting volunteer hours
as in kind. So they're not paying for those hours. So are you considering those hours at whatever they
would typically pay? So there's just things to think about. We'd have to provide some guidance. Yes.
And like I said, if in kind is an option you really want to explore, I'm happy to break that down a
lot further. I think that we can strike a balance. I think that we can really provide more accountability
and compliance work on the staff side. I don't know that we need to break it down into a ton more detail.
I think this is already pretty detailed. So I would like to propose that we see another 2.0 version of this.
that allows in-kind matching and eligible labor costs, and that we use the same mechanism to verify
either or. And that would just be where I would come from. And I would think the board would want to
provide maximum flexibility for its partners. And there's value. There's labor value. There's economic
value in volunteers, just like there's economic value in paid employees.
That's kind of where, and I just want to say thank you for putting this together. It really helps structure
the discussion. But that's just where I would be. So we're talking about volunteer time as well. I mean,
it's a viable option as far as in-time costs because, yeah, I mean, say, I mean, this isn't probably
the best example, but say like Habitat for Humanity, everybody that does the labor there, they're
Pretty much all volunteers. So if we were to do that, I mean, that would be an expense. That
would technically be an expense that we would be wanting to cover or match or whatnot. So. Right. So
how does the nonprofit, I mean, they're recording the in-kind from the volunteer time. Then they're
getting grant revenue that really isn't paying for. They wouldn't get.
cash for it. They would get credit, credit, credit towards the match. Yeah. Okay. All right. Like leverage.
So is that double dipping is the big question. Yeah, that's kind of what I'm wondering is that like,
is that a double because they're already getting the in kind from the volunteer time. And if we're,
yeah, maybe I'm making it too complicated in my head, but it feels like it almost feels like double
dipping on
something like that. And again, these aren't, you know, multi-thousand dollar grants here we're talking
about, or communities. You're saying, though, that the volunteers, like, okay, Habitat for Humanity,
for example, those volunteers are working on a house, not necessarily working on a project that improves
the building of the Habitat for Humanity's building. Right. Right. So, I mean, if there's volunteers
that are doing the labor of
this specific building improvement group, then that might make sense. But you can't match all the volunteers
who are coming to do Habitat projects that are not necessarily related to this project. So it would
just be volunteer time related to the project, which they would already, the nonprofit would already
be recording that time as in time. So I guess we just would be allowing
or business or organization to offset that for additional revenue for the grant, right? Is that what
I'm asking? I would think we could come up with some kind of a form that's very simple. They're where
you just report the labor costs on the project. Who was the person? How many hours did they work? Were
they paid? If they weren't paid, what's the equivalent wage that they would have been paid?
We can just gut check that they're not using outrageous numbers. I would just tie it to that max federal.
It's reasonable. But, Felisa, are you going to have something to say? Well, can you expand on that?
I don't know what max federal is. I can't. Oh. Oh, sorry. Did you have a comment? Did you have something
to say? Yes. What the?
We are not giving out multi-million dollar grants. Why are we making this so complicated to grant business
money to improve our community? Why? This is not
Well, if you add in in kind to the process, it will make it easier for businesses to be able to receive
grant funding because they are not having to have cash on hand as the match. So it's not currently in
the grant. Yeah. So with the current grant guidelines that we have and eligibility guidelines,
there is nothing that explicitly puts in that factor, which I think would probably make the grant more
attractive to organizations if they know that that is a way to leverage against, because a 50% match
to some businesses is a lot of money if you're asking for 10 grand. So if you can put in some type of
either in-kind
or put in eligible labor costs and things that are accessible and attainable, then that makes the whole
grant open to so many more people. And so the purpose of this discussion is to decide, A, do we want
to explicitly say that? B, if we are explicitly saying that, how are we saying it? And C, how do we
ensure that if someone is saying that they're going to do that, that they've actually done that?
Yeah. And I will piggyback on that. So most of the time with most grants, these two things will accomplish
the exact same goal. Like the money spent by the business will be the same. My thing on the administrative
standpoint is when you're asking for a budget up front and you're signing off on it, that is a application
commitment. In kind is more an administration commitment. And that's why I'm saying it's a little different
on how we administer that when it's in a budget versus in like during
Does that make a little more sense? Not that it's a huge concern. That was just kind of where I was
coming at from that administrative standpoint, which, yeah. Katie, how about that? I don't know where
I am on volunteer hours, so I think that I totally understand the in-kind and I think that does seem
okay to me.
volunteer hours I feel maybe differently about, but I don't know why, and maybe it's fine. So I don't
think I feel strongly right now about how we do it. I see the point on the, to Heather's point, the
feeling that it's double-dipping because you're getting labor for free already, and then you're leveraging
that free labor against a match. Janie, the option you were proposing, it was that they'd have to choose
one or the other, correct?
Well, just like they have to make all choices when they're submitting their budget. They're going to
reflect, do I have, am I paying salaried people, or is it easier for me to contribute in kind? For me,
sure. I think they're always going to be. But meaning they couldn't do any kind and request the labor.
No. But I'm saying that they're going to make their own decisions and do whatever's easiest for their
bookkeeping. One of the burdens, probably Felisa would back this, but for small businesses especially,
is doing that administrative work and calculating all the stuff.
So yeah, whatever, give them the option of whatever's easy for them. We need to absorb that complexity
on the staff side. I think we can do that. I like Brad's idea of a Google form. And I don't want to
dominate because I'm curious about the resistance to counting volunteer match hours. I don't really
have a dog in the fight other than just keep it simple for the applicants. I think where my primary
concern would be is not so much that I think
We need to make it easy to go get volunteers to do these projects if we're talking about business grants.
But if I'm a business owner and I don't pay myself a salary, then I don't have a hard labor cost for
the time that I'm putting in. So I think we need to have some mechanism where we can say, this wasn't
a hard cost because I didn't take a paycheck last week. But I still contributed in kind the value of
my time to the project.
I just feel like if we have a max limit, we're going to assume that if it's available, the businesses
are going to take the max. I don't think that's a huge issue if we've got, because again, policing,
the bean counting, who has time for that, right? And there can be mistakes. There can be things that
you forget. There can be things that you slip. And I feel like we just don't have,
Now, if we were talking millions and billions of dollars, absolutely. But even to me, up to $40,000
or $50,000, if the max is maybe, let's say a percentage, I would be more comfortable saying the max
would be a percentage, but I'm not sure what the federal guidance would be, the percentage on each grant.
So let's say if we could just, max would be
12% of the grant that you could do whatever this in-kind thing is, then we assume that the businesses
and the organizations are going to probably take the max because they would like the cash or whatever.
And we can't worry about that. I mean, if there's a situation where there needs to be some auditing,
hopefully we won't have to be reactive and do some things. But I think if we can set a percentage of
the grant for the in-kind amount, we have to trust that maybe in a year,
we do some internal auditing and see how it worked out, and then we can scrap it if it doesn't work.
But I just think there's so many things that a business can forget. And like to Brad's point, I mean,
you don't always, as an owner, you don't always pay yourself for consistent. There can be all sorts
of things, but it doesn't mean you didn't do the work, or it doesn't mean your spouse or your partner
or your whoever, you know? So I don't know, I think we just need to set a percentage in. Keep in mind,
we're talking about credit towards the match, right? Right. Not paying people real dollars. Right, right, right.
we could decide we don't require a match at all, right? So that's completely within our purview to decide
how we give credit for the match. I can definitely write up a few options for you guys and kind of talk
about percentages, things like that. Is there a percentage that you have in mind? Anywhere grants I've
worked with, they move anywhere from 15% to 50% of the grand match, typically. And that's just depending
on the agency and for total match.
For the total match, you can use up to like 50% of your match could be in kind. That's not uncommon.
But then I've also seen as low as 15. So you're asking for a percentage. I'm asking for the board's
opinion on a percentage. Just rough estimates and not asking you to vote on anything. I'm just meaning
for this proposal, I'm going to put together for you. What would you like to see? I think it would have
to be based on what's the max grant we give typically. 10,000 on this one. 10,000? OK.
The max, if we did what? 20% would be $2,000. So I think we need to think about it that way. That's,
I don't know, this makes it easier for me and my brain, but I don't know. Yeah, suggestion. So say it's
an $8,000 ask with a $2,000. Well, I'm saying percentage, so it's going to be variable based on the
grant, right? So if it's $8,000, then it would be $1,600. $8,000 is the work and $2,000 is the...
What are we calling this? Additional expenses? It matches 50%, right? Right. So that would be a $20,000
project. Yeah. We would be matched. OK. So that would be providing $4,000 worth of labor. We'll match
it. OK. Is there any other considerations you'd like me to include in this next round of things? I have
one unrelated.
And it's just the very first sentence of the language here. I think we talked a few times at previous
meetings and maybe I missed where we changed our mind on this, but I thought we decided we wanted to
make it clear in that first line that it's not only businesses and nonprofit organizations in the zone,
but also those who primarily serve
You are correct. That language does need to be updated. I'm so sorry about that. Yes, that is correct.
Any other questions?
comments on this, so it sounds like you'll do a 2.0 version for us and come back and then we'll have
something maybe at that point where we can vote on and then implement into the application process.
Nobody mentioned option one. We did kind of skip over option one. Option one and option two effectively
do the same thing. They're just, it's just kind of
using it as ineligible or listing it as eligible. It just kind of depends on the verb. If you wanted,
I just wanted to include both options because I didn't want someone to be like, whoa, can it not be
ineligible or vice versa. It's effectively the same thing. Yeah. I always think defining what's eligible
seems to be a little bit better because then it's really clear as to what you
Because there's always some gray area in what you can't. But if you can't, this is the. So if there's,
since we're clearly saying there are going to be eligible labor costs, I think that that is, as a board
we're saying. And based on the approval for Wonder Lab, we've agreed there are times when that definitely
makes sense. So to me, that is then stated. So maybe language around the eligible along with the,
clarification on them in kind and match would be would be good for a second version if everyone is good
with that. Thank you for putting this together. This is this is really helpful. This is kind of you
know helps us move the discussion along and make a decision on this. Yeah I mean and in the end this
makes this easier for when we are
Presenting grants to all of you, we can very clearly say, this is what's going on. And that's not to
say that we shouldn't have discussion about the applications, but then it keeps us from getting kind
of like pigeonholed into just like one area of cost or whatnot. And I'm hoping that this kind of like
expedites some of the things that we do within the board meetings when we're reviewing grants. So. The
only thing I would add is I wonder
later we need to be any more specific on primarily serving zoned residents because we did have that
insurance company out by Culver's that we were like that nexus did not feel close enough. So I don't
know. So we did. So and Brad just brought this up as far as like the verbiage as far as like who we're
serving and that is
So for some organizations, when we're talking about nonprofits for the most part, it's actually easier
for them to be able to say, oh, well, this is the activity that we do because they're keeping numbers
for reporting reasons and all of that. We do have the scoring rubric, which
I think that I hope that everybody's taking a look at it. It's not required that everybody has to fill
it out, but it is a good guideline to get you through when you're looking at the grants before we come
to a meeting. I think that, for instance, First Christian Church, they do a lot of work for the zone,
and they're not technically in it. Right. I think the witness needs to say something like, located in
the zone, or who's
Primary service is provided in the zone. We have the three criteria that were out. That's where we landed.
So we need to include those three specific criteria. I'm trying to look through my files. I'm not finding
it right away. I think that comes right out of the bylaws. Yes.
kind of lays that out. And so that's part of like our decision making and the rubric too. So I think
those three, those three things will be updated need to be. So there is proximity, but it has these
three other factors that go into it. And it is about serving residents of the zone. And it has like
an economic and there's like two, there's three different, and I'm sorry, my
brain is not remembering but I think if you can pull that language D and that's definitely back in our
minutes when we were discussing that and how we approved it that then allows us to consider grants for
businesses and nonprofits out of the zone if they're meeting that other criteria that is our part of
our bylaw language. Yes and I also think you know with with the times that we live in and the we have
a lot of organizations that are you know
not necessarily struggling, but they're definitely in survival mode. Everybody is in a bit of a survival
mindset. And I think the greater our reach can be, the better off we all are as an organization and
what we can do and the people we can service. So I am really grateful that the thought process is thinking of
thinking of organizations that are just outside that do have such an impact that are so very important.
Because if we were to go by this invisible line consistently, I think that there are a lot of people
that need help that we wouldn't be helping. So I appreciate that decision by the board. And I will make
sure that all that language is updated. I think I may have updated half the grants and maybe got distracted.
Very good. Thank you, Dee. Thank you both for the work on this and we'll have a 2.0 version next time
to discuss. All right. I didn't see anything. Did we get everything on our... That is everything. Yeah,
I pulled the
grant application that was originally in there because we're still waiting on estimates for that historic
facade grant. So hopefully we will, this is the second meeting I've tried to put it in. I've been missing
that piece. So hopefully next meeting we can look at a historic facade grant. And yeah, hopefully we'll
just have a ton more grants next meeting. All right, very well. In that case, if there's any,
for the go to the cause. I just have a quick question about the arts and culture grants. Does this group
approve those grants or does that go to the BAC? That goes to the BAC. So yeah, all of those grants
go through their committees and their approval process. They have specific reverse to complete all that.
We do the final
approval though we do get an overview yeah it's like an omnibus at the end yeah of each cycle yeah so
we are final approval so there is each organization or individuals listed kind of like a little excerpt
of what the grant and then the amount and so as the over fiduciary oversight this board does approve
the final disbursement uh felicia did you have something to say yes i did um
So for the 2.0 discussion or idea of the grants, so I know a lot of chairs have been refilled since
the time of when I began on the board. We had changed
before a lot of you came on the board that we did not do the match grant. We had stopped a lot of the
match grants. Somewhere, somehow, the match grant came back. And that's fine, you know. We had speared
away from that because we wanted to start the culture of being away from what banks
and other lenders were because we were grants. We were set aside from everything else because we were
giving out grants to small businesses that couldn't get loans. We were the hope for companies that couldn't
sit in front of a lender that couldn't speak the language of a bank lender or a loan
advisor or anything of that such. And we spoke their language to speak to our community and give the
grants for what they needed in their business. So we didn't we didn't need them to match anything to
get access to what they needed in small portions. So we stepped away from telling them you need this amount.
to get this amount. And I understand none of you were here for that, but it breaks my heart to see it
come back. And also, as a business owner and seeing the times change and even get harder for business
owners and watch us time after time, watch business after business after business close.
and watch people say the resources aren't there. And watch us sit around this table once a month and
decide where resources go, who gets what, and decide how we get it or how we're giving it to them. And
talk to business owners that just can't get their hands around the smallest
thing to keep their life on and tell them that you can come to this group of people that understands.
I sit at that table. I know what it is. We're giving this where we're helping with these resources and
to be telling them this knowing that they may not have access to it.
Because they don't have the resources to match what I'm telling them they can have access to. You know
what I mean? I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm sitting telling them and being a liar. I'm being
a liar to the fact that on one side, I'm a business owner who struggles with them. On the other side,
I sit at this table with you guys, and y'all don't understand the struggles of a business owner
and this economy that goes through these everyday struggles, that grinds in and out, that has street
closures, that may stop your clientele, that may stop your business for two or three days of a week,
when it peaks season, that you don't make revenue, that if you don't work,
you don't eat, and you don't pay yourself for months, but you still gotta keep these lights on. And
then you say, this grant money has to be matched to get it. So what I'm telling you is,
That's not an option for some business owners. That's not the case in some situations. Open your eyes
to see the economy right now. When some of you go to work, y'all know y'all gonna get a check because
you showed up. We don't clock in.
And I'm not saying this for pity. I'm not saying this for any of y'all to feel bad. I just want you
to understand and implement that into what we're doing here once a month. Like really know that we can't
keep doing this. We can't keep putting these type of restrictions on people
who don't clock in to get a check every week or twice a week. That don't happen. When they're fixing
things in their business, even if they're renting, they don't get that money back. That's all. So think
about that the next time we're saying,
We want to match it. Let's think about that when we put this 2.0 into place. Do all the grants have
matches? No. I thought this was one of the only ones. The minor repair grant does not, and that's for
up to $1,000. The safety and security has a 50. The building improvement has a 50, and the accessibility has 25.
We steered away from that for that reason. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for sharing. Thank you, Melissa.
That is before my time on the committee. Mine as well. And so I didn't realize that that was a practice.
That was a, the former board when I started, that was pretty much the requirement that they gave me
that like, well, we have to, the businesses have to have some skin in the game and that's how I constructed
it. So, yeah.
But the board is free to change any of the things that are within the grant guidelines. Just because
it's that way doesn't mean it has to be that way. There's nothing that legally says that we have to
do that. All we have to do is have a vote and change it. With the option we discussed, I would put a
no match section in this section 2.0. Because as a grant administrator, formally,
I think that in-kind without administration is essentially no match. To me, it's essentially the same
thing. You're just adding administrative burden on both sides. And that's a very just honest response.
Because if you're not, you know, we don't really have right now the grounds to kind of foresee these
things and to police them. And we don't want to be the police. You know, that's not our role. So I would
love to include that in the 2.0, if that is what you're looking for.
All right, let's do that. No match requirement, yeah. I will include the combined option and then the
no match option. That way we can kind of discuss that. And I will include kind of what the administrative
burden would look like on both sides of that. And we can kind of discuss what that'll be. That's fair.
Thank you. Thank you, Melissa. Appreciate your comments. Thank you, Melissa. Absolutely. You're welcome.
Thank you guys for listening. You're welcome. Always. Absolutely. All right. Y'all, we're at 102, so.
All right. Meeting adjourned. All right. Thanks, everybody. Thanks, everyone. Thank you.